Can only priests interpret the bible?

[TxGodfollower]

And that’s a beautiful approach… until Joe, Bill, and Chuck each say that their mutually exclusive interpretations are all the product of the the help of the Holy Spirit.

At that point, how in the world do you hope to assert whose interpretation is correct, if individuals are considered to be capable of individually interpreting the Bible as long as they claim that they’ve had the “help of the Holy Spirit”?

1 Thessalonians 5:21 “Prove all things”, 1 Corinthians 2:13 “comparing spiritual things with spiritual things”, and 2 Timothy 2:15 “Study”. They can’t all be right, but the Bible will show the Truth if you study diligently.

 

[Gorgias]

1 Thessalonians 5:21 “Prove all things”

The context here are the warnings immediately preceding, in v. 20: do not quench the Spirit and do not despise prophecy. The context isn’t talking about Scriptural interpretation.

1 Corinthians 2:13 “comparing spiritual things with spiritual things”

The context here is the way that we’re able to give witness to the gifts God has given us: in v. 12-13, we see Paul is talking about the way that “we may understand the things freely given us by God. And we speak about them… with words taught by the Spirit.”

In other words, Paul is talking about Christian witness… not about Scriptural interpretation.

2 Timothy 2:15 “Study”

The KJV renders 2 Tim 2:15 as “Study to shew thyself approved unto God”, but the Greek word here is σπούδασον, or “hasten”, as in “Be eager to present yourself as acceptable to God”. This has to do with apologetics, not Scriptural interpretation. The case that Paul is addressing is the kind of thing Paul mentions in v.18: some have asserted that the resurrection has already occurred. Scriptural interpretation, perhaps, is part of what might be used to demonstrate that one understands God’s Truth; but the context is “idle chatter” that distorts the truth.

Interestingly enough, he’s telling this not to the laypeople of the Church, but to Timothy – a man whom Paul has installed as an administrator of the Church (and, ostensibly, a priest). If this verse speaks to Scriptural interpretation, this would undermine your case, since it would show Paul placing Scriptural interpretation to be the province of Church leaders, and not of individuals.

I appreciate that you truly believe what you’re presenting to us; I really do. However, the snippets of proof-texts that you have provided don’t speak to the case you’re trying to make, unless you’re explicitly attempting to use the Word of God to say something that it’s not saying. (And, I trust that this isn’t what you’re trying to do.)

They can’t all be right, but the Bible will show the Truth if you study diligently.

That’s nice and all… but everyone who claims that he can interpret the Bible will claim that he’s right; moreover, each will assert what you have outlined here: that the Bible has shown him the Truth, through his diligence.

In short, this is a non-starter: it just does not work, and is not capable of working, as we can see from the wide variety of mutually exclusive teachings among the Body of Christ in Reformation communities. :sad_yes:

 

[TimothyH]

In most ways you are probably more accurate. But for times when the faithful need Christian interpretation of modern issues, the Church has to articulate teachings in ways that have never been articulated before. As the Church faces new challenges and new questions, it has the authority to define specifically where the Christian faith stands, something that theologians, who interpret the Bible, have no authority whatsoever. Basically this is development of Doctrine, that is, development of doctrine that has already been established but in need of further articulation. The Magisterium has the authority to interpret doctrine based upon Tradition. So basically, where the OP’s topic is concerned, what specific Bible passages mean is a theologian’s job to harmonize Scripture interpretation with Church doctrine. **As long as correct doctrine is not compromised, there is a specific amount of liberty a lay Catholic or theologian has when reading and interpreting Scripture. **Even an interpretation of a Protestant or heretic can be useful as long as it does not in any way compromise Catholic doctrine. One can find commentaries by Pelagius to be very helpful. You can find Medieval Catholic glossed Bibles and even Church Fathers who have gleaned from certain heretics. I don’t recommend using Protestant and heretic resources unless one is advanced and grounded in Catholic teachings. I usually try to stay away from those things, but I do make use of established Catholic theologians that has gleaned from them because I trust their judgment much more than mine. If the Glossa Ordinaria and great theologians like Aquinas and Hugh of St. Cher make use of a heretic or schismatic comment, then I feel more than comfortable to accept it.

Thank you for this post. Some seem to find this very difficult to understand, especially the part in red.

I had a man tell me that he only went to Bible study led by a priest because he didn’t think laypeople should interpret the Bible.

Symeon the New Theologian, Hesychios the Priest and a whole host of other people got themselves into hot water by teaching error but much of their teaching is solid and the basis for the work of other, more well known theologians.

-Tim-

 

[TARRAT]

It’s a good point; but I don’t think that the issue is the interpretive bindings of ‘individuals’ or ‘others’.

Instead, I think where you’ve hit on something valuable is the point that, if we read the Bible and a verse speaks to us, in our lives, then that’s something good. However, that doesn’t give us the right to say, “this is what the proper interpretation of this verse means.” That kind of interpretation belongs to the magisterium.

So, if I read John 6 and say to myself, “what this chapter is speaking to my heart, right now, is that I need to be on guard against doubting Jesus’ words, since He has the words of eternal life,” then that’s a good ‘personal interpretation.’ Or, taking the lead from the magisterium, I can say, “we interpret this chapter to be talking about the need to seek Jesus’ flesh and blood, especially in the Eucharist!”, then I’m still fine. But, what I can’t do is say, “this chapter means that I should avoid the Eucharist, but seek out Jesus spiritually in His words, since the flesh does not avail anything,” since that ‘private interpretation’ runs counter to the interpretation of Scripture of the Church…